The Festival of Dangerous Ideas is intended to be a provocation to thought and discussion, rather than simply a provocation. It is always a matter of balance and judgement, and in this case a line has been crossed. Accordingly, we have decided not to proceed with the scheduled session with Uthman Badar. It is clear from the public reaction that the title has given the wrong impression of what Mr Badar intended to discuss. Neither Mr Badar, the St James Ethics Centre, nor Sydney Opera House in any way advocates honour killings or condones any form of violence against women.

Bullshit.

What else was he going to talk about?

Update: Simon Longstaff takes to twitter:

The session to explore 'honour killing' has been cancelled. Alas, people read the session title – and no further. Just too dangerous.

I was going to post on the other thread on this topic, when I had to refresh my screen and saw this update. Thank Christ for that. I am outraged, gobsmacked and actually couldn’t even express my rage over this and the hypocrisy of those that remained quiet (you know all those that want to call out misogyny wherever they see it. What about this gem from the SMH (buried) story:

Co-curator Ann Mossop said the presentation will ‘obviously’ not advocate honour killings.

Beggars belief that someone, somewhere in the Sydney Opera House hierarchy didn’t stamp on the concept of this lecture at the white-board brainstorming ideas stage. It also beggars belief that it took community anger to actually tell them that this lecture was a monumentally insane idea.

Either they are as thick as two bricks, or they were hoping that this would fly under the radar until it was too late to complain or do anything about it.

It seems that the Festival now has a gap in its program. I’d like to suggest to the organisers that the space ought to be filled with a ‘dangerous’ debate on the worth of drawing immigrants and ‘refugees’ from countries that possess these malign cultural practices.

Longstaff is a snivelling gollum.
Sucking at the teat of corporate Australia, giving them ticks of approval, then scurrying away with his five figure cheques.
If Worf was here, he’d say: he has no honour.

It was exactly what he was going to discuss: that honour killings are morally justified.

And now, having been forced to back down on what they had been promoting for six years to “push boundaries to the point where you become extremely uncomfortable”, everyone now knows the Sydney Opera House and the St James Ethics Centre are immoral and unethical leftists who will do whatever it takes to overturn Australian community standards just for the hell of it.

feelthebern
#1359019, posted on June 24, 2014 at 10:08 pm
Longstaff is a snivelling gollum.
Sucking at the teat of corporate Australia, giving them ticks of approval, then scurrying away with his five figure cheques.
If Worf was here, he’d say: he has no honour.

He’s not stupid though. Which means he is a dangerous enemy of freedom.

Ok ok it seems that right wing elements against progressive freedom of speech, you know the usual sorts, shock jocks, racists, have kicked up a stink so, it seems that we will have to let Uthman go. I know, I know , it’s a sign of the intolerance that is all part of living in an Abbott led regime.

Ok, next item on the agenda, the sexist pigs in the office who leave the toilet seat up. Those in favour of stern action raise your hands. Good, the ayes have it.

Here goes another missed chance of making some real loot. Mass produce baseball hats with a nice succulent rasher of bacon on the front and keep wearing them until they have all returned to the 7th century.

I seem to recall that Longstaff beclowned himself about a decade ago by getting all hot and bothered about an ‘unethical’ murder that turned out to be fictitious. I may be wrong, but it’s why the name has stuck in my mind.

Feminist author Eva Cox said the inclusion of Mr Badar’s presentation was “tacky” and possibly unethical if the title turns out to misrepresent the extent of his argument. She said it carries the risk of further demonising Muslims in the eyes of many Australians.

“You’re setting somebody up to knock them off in a sense,” Ms Cox said. She noted ”honour killings” take place in several religions and are more of a cultural phenomenon practised in the Mediterranean and North Africa, rather than being particular to Islam.

Still more on Longstaff.
He came across as a real sleaze.
He gave a lot attention to what one would call the prettier girls at the forum.
Going up to them & shoving the micro phone in their faces.
My colleagues and I had a running commentary on which looker he would stop at to “include in the conversation”.

I understand the relief at the talk being cancelled, HOWEVER, this is censorship. As appalling as it would be, I would prefer for it to proceed, so the broader public could be left under no illusion as to the horror of honour killing, and absolutely outraged that people think it can be justified.

By censoring this man, we help perpetuate the ignorance of the thousands who think Islam is fine.

Simon’s distinguished career includes being named as one of AFR Boss True Leaders for the 21st century with Carol Schwartz noting “…I don’t know one CEO or chairman in corporate Australia who has not worked with Simon Longstaff”.

Simon has a PhD in Philosophy from Cambridge. Prior to becoming the inaugural Executive Director of St James Ethics Centre in 1991, he worked in the Northern Territory in the Safety Department of BHP subsidiary, GEMCO, lectured at Cambridge University and consulted to the Cambridge Commonwealth and Overseas Trusts.

His book Hard Cases, Tough Choices was published in 1997.

Simon was inaugural President of The Australian Association for Professional & Applied Ethics and is a Fellow of the World Economic Forum. He is Chairman of Woolworths Limited Corporate Responsibility Panel, the International Advisory Board of the Genographic Project and Deputy Chairman of the Global Reporting Initiative Board. He also serves on a number of Boards and Committees including the Australian Institute of Company Directors Corporate Governance Committee, BHP Billiton Forum on Corporate Responsibility, AusAID Business Steering Committee, Business Reporting Leaders Forum, Primary Ethics Board and the Nestle Oceania Creating Shared Value Advisory Board.

I understand the relief at the talk being cancelled, HOWEVER, this is censorship.

I want to talk at the festival of dangerous ideas, but somehow they’re not interested in hearing from me. Is that censorship too?

As appalling as it would be, I would prefer for it to proceed, so the broader public could be left under no illusion as to the horror of honour killing, and absolutely outraged that people think it can be justified.

That would not be the result.

The net result would be a shifting of the moral spectrum in his direction. Simply by appearing with the sponsorship of the opera house his views are given respectability. Giving people with radical ideas a platform because everyone will realise they’re Obviously wrong is not a good strategy. It just doesn’t work.

It really would have been an interesting talk. From my understanding your traditional honour killing involves stoning, but I’ve noticed of late bricks being used and sometimes even just a brutal slaying with a kitchen knife. Is this to do with our fast paced lifestyles and people straying from the traditional ways or is Islam evolving and embracing modernity?

‘By censoring this man, we help perpetuate the ignorance of the thousands who think Islam is fine’

My main problem – and I don’t think I’m the only one – was with the Opera House supporting and providing a venue for this offensive crap immediately after it had sacked an opera singer for ‘homophobia’.

I understand the relief at the talk being cancelled, HOWEVER, this is censorship.
Yes, Duncan, it’s censorship. I’m sure I mean this in a different way than the despicable Longstaff, but some ideas simply are too dangerous to be allowed out in a civilised society.

Some gems (including the one that is the current topic) from the FODI website (there is heaps more crap on there for anyone interested in looking).

Uthman Badar examines the condemnation of honour killings and the cultural view of honour itself. If an act is overwhelmingly condemned, does it make it wrong? Who are the accusers and the moral judges? The cultural perspective takes to the stand in Honour

Former Leader of the Liberal Party and Australia’s 22nd Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser brings forth dangerous political ideas and Jane Caro hers to spur debate from all sides in How Many Dangerous Ideas Can One Person Have?

In We Are the Asteroid, Elizabeth Kolbert delivers compelling evidence that shows that we are now living through the sixth mass extinction and this time, the cause is much closer to home.

Infidel Tiger
#1359085, posted on June 24, 2014 at 10:32 pm
It really would have been an interesting talk. From my understanding your traditional honour killing involves stoning, but I’ve noticed of late bricks being used and sometimes even just a brutal slaying with a kitchen knife. Is this to do with our fast paced lifestyles and people straying from the traditional ways or is Islam evolving and embracing modernity?

The last time I asked an Imam he told me it was cool to pleasure a goat as long as it was female and I didn’t use it for meat afterwards. If I intended to use it for meat I must sell it to a village far away from my own.

The urge is to ban this kind of nonsense, but I reckon go for it sir. The best outcome would be for 2500 people to go to the talk…take your seat.. wait for him to start and then turn your back and walk out…..
When you start rationalising violence in the name of God, Allah, race, creed or football code you follow.. game over!
Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global advocacy group working for positive change in the Muslim world via the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate.
Hate to think what they would come up with being negative!

This is a very strange story but absolutely true. I recall in primary school in the mid 70s being trotted to the school hall to watch a movie. This happened from time to time, usually some historical feature that many of the kids (seemingly except myself) found mind numbingly boring. Anyway, this one particular day we were shown this movie. All I recall was people in robes and what seemed to be a desert setting. Unlike the other historical movies we were shown, I found this one mind numbingly boring. Until the end. Suddenly this woman was dragged to a set of stocks, where upon she was locked into them – then the baying crowd – proceeded to pick up rocks and throw them at her. We did not see the resultant injuries (thank God!), but we were left in no doubt what had gone on. My friend and I were stunned and very upset. I don’t think I told my parents about it as I was too shocked. I never discovered what the movie was about or why the hell we were shown it. But it left an indelible impression on me that I have never forgotten. I was about 10-11 at the time, at a very Aussie mid 70s school, and all the other experiences were normal and as one would expect in primary school at that age.

I understand the relief at the talk being cancelled, HOWEVER, this is censorship. As appalling as it would be, I would prefer for it to proceed, so the broader public could be left under no illusion as to the horror of honour killing, and absolutely outraged that people think it can be justified.

I kind of agree with this. I wanted to see it go ahead. It was another 10.10.10 video in the making. But they got smart before it actually happened. Shame, because the noise generated would have really exposed the people involved for what they are.

As for being taken out of context, reading between the lines I’m guessing the talk was going to be an attack on Australian soldiers fighting in foreign wars rather than a defence of honour killings (could they really be that stupid?). But I guess we will never know, unless someone leaks a copy of his powerpoint.

I anticipated that secular liberal Islamophobes would come out of every dark corner, foaming at the mouth, furious at why a Muslim ‘extremist’, from Hizb ut-Tahrir no less, was being allowed a platform at the Sydney Opera House to speak, but that it would only take a few hours after the advertising was released for mass hysteria to ensue is quite a feat!

I refer, of course, to the Festival of Dangerous Ideas (‪#‎FODI‬), scheduled for late August at the Sydney Opera House, at which I will be presenting on the topic of “Honour killings are morally justified” (see: http://goo.gl/ltWwhS).

The magnitude of the response is certainly beyond expectation. I’d say, “well, that escalated quickly” but even that would fail to grasp the hysteria. The newspapers, talk-back radio, twittershere, are all going berzerk and my not having uttered a word yet seems to not have been an obstacle.

I had all three majors newspapers (SMH, Oz, DT) call and ask for comments. I didn’t respond (didn’t have the time today) so they just filled in the holes themselves with the usual sensationalist innuendo, with the DT’s front page piece taking the cake. No surprises there.

Similarly, talk-back radio was being whipped into a frenzy by the usual troublemakers. Ben Fordham (2GB) has been kind enough to offer an in-studio interview, having already made up his mind and expressed his disgust.

Opportunities for TV interviews are also rolling in.

Most interview-seekers, across the media spectrum, will be disappointed I’m afraid as I will only be very selectively taking up offers. Sorry guys. I’m actually more interested in talking about Iraq and Syria right now, and the hysteria surrounding Muslims going abroad to commit hitherto unspoken crime of attempting to assist the oppressed. Live interviews on this topic welcome. TodayTonight and its ilk need not apply.

As for the twitttersphere, well, no comment! Search the FODI hash-tag and see for yourself.

What’s interesting is that I’m being attacked left, right and centre without having opened my mouth yet. I guess that’s how Islamophobia works! I seem to have roused the ire of a nation without doing anything except accept an invite to speak. Quite an achievement, don’t you think?

It’s also instructive to see liberals and advocates of free speech go crazy and call for boycotts at what is nothing more than the expression of ideas. Muslims are regularly lectured by this same lot about how we must respect free speech and accept any and all criticism, but they themselves are not prepared to live up to the same standard.

As for the content of my presentation, I wont be revealing much before the event itself. Surprise, surprise. I will, however, say that the suggestion that I would advocate for honour killings, as understand in the west, is ludicrous and something I would normally not deem worth of dignifying with a response. Rather, this is about discussing the issue at a deeper level, confronting accepted perceptions, assumptions and presumptions and seeing things from a different perspective. Is that too much to ask of the liberal mind?

I should say something about the title of the presentation as well, given some have taken issue with it. It was not of my choosing, though I consented to it. The entire topic wasn’t. I, in fact, suggested a more direct topic about Islam and secular liberalism (something like “The West needs saving by Islam” – how’s that for dangerous?), but the organisers insisted on this topic, which I think is still a worthy topic of discussion, for many reasons, as my presentation will, God-willing, show, hence I accepted.

It should be noted, on this count, that all the topics and titles of presentations at the FODI are confronting and provocative. That’s part of what they intend with the festival. In 2011, for instance, Marc Theissen, former George Bush speechwriter, argued for torture. Last year one of the presentations was entitled, ‘A killer can be good’. In this respect, my presentation is no different. What is different is that I’m Muslim – one willing to intellectually challenge secular liberal ideology and mainstream values – and that says a lot about the true extent of ‘freedom’ and ‘equality’ in modern western liberal democracies such as Australia.

So, if the Opera House and FODI organisers are able to withstand the inevitable pressure put on them by close-minded bigots to remove me from the program and save them from hearing different ideas, I’ll see you all there!
1 hr · Edited
Like · 39 comments · Share · Like Page

I anticipated that secular liberal Islamophobes would come out of every dark corner, foaming at the mouth, furious at why a Muslim ‘extremist’, from Hizb ut-Tahrir no less, was being allowed a platform at the Sydney Opera House to speak, but that it would only take a few hours after the advertising was released for mass hysteria to ensue is quite a feat!

Shelley: school “movies” at that time must make an interesting propaganda study. I distinctly remember, for no particular reason, and probably a few years later, being made to watch something about why the Government Aircraft Factories Nomad made Australia the leader in the international aviation industry.
*apologies for derailing the thread* please ignore and carry on.

Thanks Peter (sorry, I think I slightly derailed the thread) – but yes there were some very odd ones shown. But that one comes back to haunt me given where we now find ourselves with these barbarians. I am just glad at the time I thought it was made up horror. Little did I realise.

I will, however, say that the suggestion that I would advocate for honour killings, as understand in the west, is ludicrous and something I would normally not deem worth of dignifying with a response. Rather, this is about discussing the issue at a deeper level, confronting accepted perceptions, assumptions and presumptions and seeing things from a different perspective.

the whole idea seems to give levity to the poor folk that are actually killed … I think killing anyone is a serious concept and a yes/no thing beyond what might be said at literary festivals.

Brad Ashworth
#1359118, posted on June 24, 2014 at 10:49 pm
The urge is to ban this kind of nonsense, but I reckon go for it sir. The best outcome would be for 2500 people to go to the talk…take your seat.. wait for him to start and then turn your back and walk out…..

Yeah. Because that would convince them never to book him again. I ‘nothing’ this guy. He can natter on to himself in his bathroom for all I care. I’m not attending his ‘talk’. If you want to do something, write to the university he tutors at. He supports murderous violence against women.

Shelley: all of the weirdo state-produced educational “movies” I had to sit through makes me shudder. And are modern teachers lazy? Nah for ages they have loved the idea of everyone going to the A-V room (or whatever it was called) … and them doing no teaching for 45 mins or so.

Remember when a 13 year old girl was detained and pilloried in the nations media for calling a grown man an ape. Yet a fully grown man advocates the morality of killing women and he’s a victim. Go figure

I will, however, say that the suggestion that I would advocate for honour killings, as understand in the west, is ludicrous and something I would normally not deem worth of dignifying with a response. Rather, this is about discussing the issue at a deeper level, confronting accepted perceptions, assumptions and presumptions and seeing things from a different perspective. Is that too much to ask of the liberal mind?

What a bunch of crap.

Anything less than outright condemnation can, I think, be taken as endorsement.

This is one issue that’s black and white, zero middle ground.

By the way, I’m not advocating censorship. Badar can say this if he likes. I do however condemn Longstaff and the Festival for associating themselves with such a horrible idea and practice.

Unfortunately the wayback machine is not instantaneous and the relevant page(s) were not archived.

I think you will find that the wayback machine operates on a six-month delay. The website will not be available from the archive until six months after the event in question, or the pages go live (I can’t recall which).

Eva Cox is acclaimed by Eva Cox as a feminist, and acclaimed so by many T Blair hysterical frightbats.
None of which makes it true.
A supplicant to primitivism defended the speaker, not a feminist.
I wonder if I can predict the supplicants level of enthusiasm for drowning women and children in the sea near Christmas Island. Seems I can.
What about the non-existent global warming, yep predicted that too.
An open book these supplicants.

When the S18C debate kicks off again the’re going to use this affair as evidence for their cause in all sorts of ways. “You don’t really support freedom of speech anyway here’s proof”, “see here’s why speech needs to regulated, even “the right” agrees” will be first two memes off the starting block.

Yes I know it’s bullshit as its government vs private but that won’t matter. They’ll fold this neatly into their argument for keeping S18C as is, and they’ll get away with it too.

I wish he’d gone ahead and explained why killing your daughter because she refused to wear a hijab is morally defensible. He should be given a cat posting on the subject. Sinc, make him the offer. Free speech, after all.

So is Islamic immigration. The more Muslims, the more terrorists. But not only that, the more dickheads like Badar and those more subtle like Waleed Aly. Chipping away at our cultural norms and taking the legal route to Sharia. Same goal, different method.

That is why you never hear criticism of Muslims advocating violence from so-called moderates.

Mr Badar wasn’t too busy to do the talk but is too busy to do interviews about the talk. If he is more concerned about iraq and Syria why do the talk in the first place?
I have no doubt as an apologist for islam he had a purpose to legitimise islamic religious practices that are firmly grounded in the hadiths.
Getting a launching pad at the Sydney Opera House is a small in the direction he is going.
How is objecting to any public discussion of justification of honour killings a demonstration of islamophobia?
Mr Badar stands condemned by his own words.
Please Mr Badar publish your speech on the cat.

The newspapers, talk-back radio, twittershere, are all going berzerk and my not having uttered a word yet seems to not have been an obstacle.

There were several paragraphs rundown on the topic published, and I did get a screen shot thanks to google cache.

If that man is attempting to pretend this was all about the title and nothing else then he is an abject liar.

What’s interesting is that I’m being attacked left, right and centre without having opened my mouth yet. I guess that’s how Islamophobia works! I seem to have roused the ire of a nation without doing anything except accept an invite to speak. Quite an achievement, don’t you think?

When the S18C debate kicks off again the’re going to use this affair as evidence for their cause in all sorts of ways. “You don’t really support freedom of speech anyway here’s proof”, “see here’s why speech needs to regulated, even “the right” agrees” will be first two memes off the starting block.

Not me.

Let him speak. But I demand the right to respond without being silenced
with accusations of being an “Islamophobe”.

At the convent way back when, we were shown a film of a nun who ran away from the convent during a violent thunderstorm and became the mistress of a bullfighter. Roses, drops of blood, low cut blouses…it had everything that catered to the flesh and not the spirit. It all ended in tears.

The nuns were as stunned as we were, but not stunned enough to end the film, to our secret delight. Gave me a strange idea of Catholicism.

HONOUR KILLINGS ARE MORALLY JUSTIFIED
For most of recorded history parents have reluctantly sacrificed their children-sending them to kill or be killed for the honour of their nation, their flag, their king, their religion. But what about killing for the honour of one’s family? Overwhelmingly, those who condemn ‘honour killings’ are based in the liberal democracies of the West. The accuser and moral judge is the secular (white) westerner and the accused is the oriental other; the powerful condemn the powerless. By taking a particular cultural view of honour, some killings are condemned whilst others are celebrated. In turn, the act becomes a symbol of everything that is allegedly wrong with the other culture.

Uthman Badar is spokesman for Hizb ut-Tahrir in Australia. Hizb ut-Tahrir is a global advocacy group working for positive change in the Muslim world via the re-establishment of the Islamic Caliphate. He is a well-known speaker, writer and activist in the Muslim community in Sydney.

The idea that we shouldn’t condem ‘honour killings’ because we are wacist whities isn’t worthy of discussion full stop.

When the S18C debate kicks off again the’re going to use this affair as evidence for their cause in all sorts of ways. “You don’t really support freedom of speech anyway here’s proof”, “see here’s why speech needs to regulated, even “the right” agrees” will be first two memes off the starting block.

Yes I know it’s bullshit as its government vs private but that won’t matter. They’ll fold this neatly into their argument for keeping S18C as is, and they’ll get away with it too.

Don’t upset yourself about this, Stix: Muppet Brandis was never going to abolish 18c. He is all talk no action.

When the S18C debate kicks off again the’re going to use this affair as evidence for their cause in all sorts of ways. “You don’t really support freedom of speech anyway here’s proof”, “see here’s why speech needs to regulated, even “the right” agrees” will be first two memes off the starting block.

Please I pray they do so we can discuss how 18C was not necessary to prevent abhorent views from being aired.

We can then refer to the Donald Stirling case, how Adam Goodes successfully bullied a 13yo girl (and stared down the ALP favourite Maguire) and many more cases.

I think it is a great pity this was cancelled. Let’s put that evil stupidity front and centre. The giving of that talk was going to be a major own-goal. In fact, they should have been encouraged to include genital mutilation.

And let’s be honest that what we witnessed was the shouting down of someone truing to put forward a proposition. The fact that these ideas are held at all, and not necessarily by just a tiny group, makes it vitally important that we discuss them fully and openly. Ideas like honour murders are more likely to survive if we refuse to discuss them.

Calling bullshit on all you libertarian hypocrites
Happy to overturn 18c but when it comes to someone who offends your small minded parochial world you aren’t to be seen. Let him talk and let the cards fall where they may.

Now I was happy for him to talk but also happy to call the him out.
If people want to promote isis, honour killings, killing of homosexuals, Fgm and all the other good stuff in islam they can. Too many people have rose coloured glasses.
If Sydney Opera house chickened out that is on them.

“Muslims going abroad to commit hitherto unspoken crime of attempting to assist the oppressed”
How come the oppressed Muslims being assisted are always Sunnis and the oppressors Shiites? Why aren’t the oppressed Shiites in Malaysia, Indonesia , Saudi Arabia, Pakistan being assisted?
I guess we know where Uthman Badar stands.
“Hizb ut-Tahrir organization was founded in 1953 as a Sunni Muslim organization in Jerusalem by Taqiuddin al-Nabhani”

100% – one of the co-commitments of free speech is allowing people with repellent, or misplaced ideologies express themselves. Providing he is not inciting anyone to kill non-conformists in his community, Uthman should be right up on the soap box with other intellectuals representing paedophiles, white supremacists, creationists, holocaust deniers and Jedi Knights.

We shouldn’t mix up the right to free speech and censorship. In my view this jerk has a general right to put an idea forward, and equally we have a right to call it out as abhorrent and also to pressure organisers to cancel such offensive speech opportunities. I don’t think anyone is calling for the Government to censor him.

We all have the right to exercise our freedom of speech to call out evil like trying to justify premeditated murder. It is also illuminating that an ‘ethicist’ allows premeditated murder to be misleading labelled as ‘honour killing’.

Indeed, in this case, any moral justification for ‘honour killing’ (which is premeditated murder under our law) might well convince some Muslims that premeditated murder of women and girls is morally acceptable. If this were to occur, this speech might constitute incitement to murder. So in this particular, and extreme, case the speech might not have fallen into the category of protected free speech at all. That an ethics organisation couldn’t identify this potential calls into question the judgement and ethics of the ethicist. If it was just a publicity stunt then the ethics are even worse.

However, whilst I am utterly opposed to this vile person’s horrible views, I would have been happy for him to make them in public. This allows everyone to be that much better informed about the real moral views of some of these ‘mainstream’ Islamic groups. They are evil, and I am happy for this man to publicly tell everyone in the general community just how totally evil and unacceptable this man and his followers are.

Either way, the public backlash against the St James Ethics Centre and Simon Longstaff, demonstrates that the public has a much stronger ethical grounding than the professional ethicists and their ethics centre. Why anyone would take ethics advice from a Centre that can’t even be honest about its source of funding is beyond me.

The last time I asked an Imam he told me it was cool to pleasure a goat as long as it was female and I didn’t use it for meat afterwards. If I intended to use it for meat I must sell it to a village far away from my own.

I once challenged an imam (he was appropriately robed, so I guess that was what he was) who was handing out copies of the Koran in a suburban shopping centre about his attitude to Australian laws. We had an interesting “discussion” in which he assured me that the settlement of disputes (including injury to person) by “blood money” was far preferable to our system because “everyone was happy in the end”. However, he assured me that he would abide by our laws.

It was during Rudd’s regime when gay marriage was on the agenda, so I asked him (cunningly!) what he would do if a law was enacted permitting gay marriage. He threw up his hands in horror, and unhesitatingly declared he would not accept it, since it would be contrary to “sharia law”. Bingo!

1234
#1359417, posted on June 25, 2014 at 9:27 am
Calling bullshit on all you libertarian hypocrites
Happy to overturn 18c but when it comes to someone who offends your small minded parochial world you aren’t to be seen. Let him talk and let the cards fall where they may.

You snivelling little dickhead.

s18c is a state power.

The FODI cancelled under social pressure.

You seem to think being coerced to support a political movement is the same as being asked to donate to a political cause.

Classic not since the Brisbane writers where Germaine Greer was invited as a guest and not only bagged the writers, but the festival itself have we seen such a debacle. Good one dangerous ideas festival organiser , you have out done yourself by inviting a guest who condones the honour killing of a whole entire gender. Yes that’s right it women who are the root of all evil and so deserve this barbaric torture.

What? I thought you had to be a initiated as a Muslim to be given a copy from an Imam or a Mosque.

Nup. This is well organised proselytising throughout the western world whereby the Koran is distributed free, mostly in main street shopping strips. You will see this all over the UK & in Europe especially.

I have read that it is bank rolled by the Saudis.

In my suburb I observed many shoppers – particularly young people – meekly taking a copy. When I stood for some twenty minutes debating issues I noticed some pretty horrified faces around me. But we should not miss an opportunity to defend our values, laws and lifestyle when we can.

This is precisely the point. Many here were agitating for it to go ahead, so this clowns full moral depravity (and those of his organisers) could be shown, on youtube, for the world to see.

Some found it abhorrent and wished for the event to be cancelled.

Nobody wanted the government to shut it down or for this medieval idiot to be dragged into court.

Free Speech is about being able to speak about what you like, without breaking laws and being hauled in front of a government and punished.

Somehow this fool finds a way to twist the argument into free speech being used as a power to victimise those honourable men who like to murder their own wives and children.

Let him talk I say. But no – despite the possibility of getting his face on every single TV and every single paper – he declines interviews. Apparently he doesn’t want to talk now.

What a shallow, vain, little fool. Hiding behind his murderous ideology and claiming victim when people of all races and creeds rightfully call him out for his reprehensible views on the treatment of women.

Nup. This is well organised proselytising throughout the western world whereby the Koran is distributed free, mostly in main street shopping strips. You will see this all over the UK & in Europe especially.

In the UK i have seen these street stalls with a large sign saying ‘did you know that Jesus is a prophet in the Koran’ … or words to that effect. They have korans and leaflets and the like. The presentation is not far off from the wandering door-to-door guys like JWs or Mormons. (presentation, I mean, not content).

They sic the government onto their enemies all the time. They pass and defend laws to be used exclusively to shut their political enemies up at the point of a gun with the threat of spending time in a cage if you don’t comply.

Then after critisism and some words on a few blogs and newspapers and they shutdown, they voluntarily pull an act and then they start howling about being censored because they chose to silence themselves in the face of critisism from private individuals.

Tom,
If you go to the St James Ethics Centre’s website and go to the ‘Donate’ page they proudly proclaim that they get no government funding. When you click on the link to their Catalyst funding partners you will see that they include a Federal Government entity (their logo says they are part of the Federal Govt), The ABC and the City of Sydney (local government). Therefore they can’t even be honest about their funding sources, hence my statement why anyone would take ethics advice from an organisation that doesn’t understand the basic ethics around honesty.

Agree 100% with Pedro. Cancelling this was a mistake.
It not only violates the free speech argument, but it drives this thought process underground. Better to have it aired so there can be no mistaking what these rock-apes are about, rather then have them not air it and put feed us the ‘relegion of peace’ bullshit.

Works for me.
“Thanks Abdullah – I came down to buy Dunny paper & tally ho. Now I don’t need to – Cheers mate!”

Hmm.

Not bad. Not bad at all!

But for extra hilarity:

“Thanks Abdullah – my gay satanist neighbour has a new ex-muslim boyfriend and when he heard I was coming down here he asked me to buy lard to use as lube and Dunny paper to wipe it off. And I need some tally ho. Now I don’t need to buy anything but the lard – Cheers mate!”

The government didn’t silence him. Nobody forced the Festival of Dangerous Ideas to take him off the ticket.

True, no government intervention. However there was a fair bit of agitation last night by Bolt (on 2GB) and others to start a campaign to target sponsers of the event and other such pressures to stop the speech.
Which is fine except that the left will always win that battle since they do outrage so much better. Shut this talk down and you can’t complain when the left stop Geert Wilders from speaking as they tried to last time using the same methods, or destroy the joint trying to get people thrown off air.

My other issue is I as an individual find the idea that others (government or no) tell me what I can and can’t hear ridiculous. What, you think I’m that weak willed that hearing that dipshit speak is going to suddenly turn me into a wife killer?
Let him talk, and then let me hector him and ridicule him and call him a backward assed savage.
But don’t stop him from opening his mouth because it just turns him into a victim.

Calling bullshit on all you libertarian hypocrites
Happy to overturn 18c but when it comes to someone who offends your small minded parochial world you aren’t to be seen. Let him talk and let the cards fall where they may.

Most of us agree with you, 1234. No hypocrisy here.

Let the twit beclown himself by seeking to justify premeditated murder of women and girls. Let him reveal to everyone what ‘the religion of peace’ is all about.

If an act is overwhelmingly condemned, does it make it wrong? Who are the accusers and the moral judges?

This is the kind of postmodern sophistry beloved of pseudo intellectuals. Oppressed “other” trumps anglo privilege/hegemony every time – to the point of absurdity. Another example in the genre was a gay “intellectual” who opined that promiscuity in the post AIDs era, instead of being considered as self destructive, “could be redescribed as promoting reciprocal care and self protection”. Promiscuity is therefore “not merely defended in the face of AIDS panic, but is actually promoted as the route to something new.”

This is the mentality you are dealing with in these cases. And this type of thinking is the end product of thousands of years of human evolution?

Which is fine except that the left will always win that battle since they do outrage so much better.

Fully agree.

But what you’re describing is akin to terrorism. You’re saying that because the left are better at using power to shut us up we should be careful not say anything or react to their idiocy. But as you say they always win that battle anyway, so what difference does it make?
I doubt they ever had any intention of letting him speak anyway.

What, you think I’m that weak willed that hearing that dipshit speak is going to suddenly turn me into a wife killer?

Artificially elevating revolting ideas to mainstream prominence for the smug entertainment of bored leftists has the side effect of normalising the idea in society. I mean, we’re talking about a Muslim man saying the practice of murdering your daughter is defensible, being given a platform at a major event at the Sydney Opera House. You don’t think that gives him credibility far beyond that which he naturally has? Without being boosted by the left for their own ends how many people even know or care about him?

Go back 30 years and say this would be the case in Australia in 30 years. Honor Killings being justified in the Opera House. You’d have laughed. Yet here we are, and it’s almost par for the course. So how did that happen? Through the long and gradual process of normalising us to the crazy world that the likes of him (and most of the middle east) exist in. And who keeps giving these people prominence and elevating and boosting these people into our faces and lives at every chance?

The government didn’t silence him. Nobody forced the Festival of Dangerous Ideas to take him off the ticket.

True, no government intervention. However there was a fair bit of agitation last night by Bolt (on 2GB) and others to start a campaign to target sponsers of the event and other such pressures to stop the speech.
Which is fine except that the left will always win that battle since they do outrage so much better. Shut this talk down and you can’t complain when the left stop Geert Wilders from speaking as they tried to last time using the same methods, or destroy the joint trying to get people thrown off air.

My other issue is I as an individual find the idea that others (government or no) tell me what I can and can’t hear ridiculous. What, you think I’m that weak willed that hearing that dipshit speak is going to suddenly turn me into a wife killer?
Let him talk, and then let me hector him and ridicule him and call him a backward assed savage.
But don’t stop him from opening his mouth because it just turns him into a victim.

I’m with you, Skeletor. Pity it was cancelled. Let him talk. I want to see who the enemy is.

The left will use this as a tit for tat counter and we are fucked because it’s true and they are better at outrage than us like the poster above said.

Are they cunning enough to have set it up to do us over on the s18C issue or are they truly such fuckwits?

People forget that free speech means having the freedom to criticise. And that’s all that happened. People criticised and objected to ‘honour killings are morally justified”. And rightly so. That he was taken off the FODI remains with the SOH decision.

And who keeps giving these people prominence and elevating and boosting these people into our faces and lives at every chance?

People who see this issue in terms of an interesting abstraction which provides a framework for discussing, yet again, how the oppressive structures of Western society impose a cultural hegemony over the “other”. Nothing to get excited about folks. Accidents happen. Tragedies happen.

I’m not going to allow the censorship allegation to stand – quite frankly I would have been perfectly fine with the Wacky Keynesian presenting his dissertation on why “honour killings are morally justified”.

It’s a festival of dangerous ideas, FFS. There are few more dangerous (and stupid) ideas than allowing males to assume they have a right to murder women and girls for real or perceived slights on a man and his family.

Let the ‘man’ speak and by his own words he shall be condemned. It also places the increasingly unhinged position of various leftists vis-a-vis our society and its values front and centre.

But what you’re describing is akin to terrorism. You’re saying that because the left are better at using power to shut us up we should be careful not say anything or react to their idiocy. But as you say they always win that battle anyway, so what difference does it make?
I doubt they ever had any intention of letting him speak anyway.

No, I’m not saying to react to their idiocy. I’m saying not to react via the methods they specialise in, which is the shutting down of debate. Instead, fight the war on what the right is good at.
Logic.
Instead of not having him talk, the better result would have been to have his ‘talk’ followed up by one entitled “Islam – why the West should just stone Mecca back past the stone age” and hold the talk that just occured up as an example why.
There is a dangerous idea for the festival. And surely they can’t knock that back if they accept a talk on killing women. If they do, accuse them (correctly) of hypocrosy.
Of these two ‘dangerous’ pannels, which do you think would have content that would resonate more with the public?

Artificially elevating revolting ideas to mainstream prominence for the smug entertainment of bored leftists has the side effect of normalising the idea in society. I mean, we’re talking about a Muslim man saying the practice of murdering your daughter is defensible, being given a platform at a major event at the Sydney Opera House. You don’t think that gives him credibility far beyond that which he naturally has? Without being boosted by the left for their own ends how many people even know or care about him?

Only if his hrseshit isn’t challenged. I never said not to challenge him. Rather I said let him speak and then give him both barrels Making him look like an utter fool is best done after he has proven he is without a doubt (rather than have him insist “that’s not what I was going to say” as he is now.)

Here’s what happened. Badar is an apologist for some of the worst practices in the name of Islam (I’m not going to get into a theological debate about whether ‘honour killings’ are justified; it’s not relevant). Fine. It is the right of everyone here to call him a disgusting individual. The St. James Ethics Centre and the Festival of Dangerous Ideas decided to elevate these ideas to prominence by giving them their imprimatur. Fine. It is the right of everyone here to call the relevant decision-makers disgusting individuals. The event was cancelled because they didn’t have the balls in the face of criticism.

Frank Furedi wrote an excellent book on Tolerance, which covers a lot of this. To ‘tolerate’ something (speech or ideas) does not mean one has to agree with it, or indeed behave in relation to the thing in the manner which leftists call ‘tolerant’ (which is actually non-judgmentalism).

the better result would have been to have his ‘talk’ followed up by one entitled “Islam – why the West should just stone Mecca back past the stone age” and hold the talk that just occured up as an example why.

The problem dear Mr Skeletor, is that never would happen.

Outside of having a snowballs chance in hell of any serious commentator critical of Islam being invited to that festival, as I posted above, in Australia making a career out of pointing out Islams flaws and demonstrated tendency toward violence genuinely is a dangerous idea, one which will have you hauled in by the state and charged with blasphemy by proxy quicker than you can think.

the manner which leftists call ‘tolerant’ (which is actually non-judgmentalism).

twostix

#1359755, posted on June 25, 2014 at 2:38 pm

the better result would have been to have his ‘talk’ followed up by one entitled “Islam – why the West should just stone Mecca back past the stone age” and hold the talk that just occured up as an example why.

The problem dear Mr Skeletor, is that never would happen.

Outside of having a snowballs chance in hell of any serious commentator critical of Islam being invited to that festival, as I posted above, in Australia making a career out of pointing out Islams flaws and demonstrated tendency toward violence genuinely is a dangerous idea, one which will have you hauled in by the state and charged with blasphemy by proxy quicker than you can think.

As two Pastors in Victoria above found out.

I din’t believe it before I googled it. And s18c still stands yeah I know state/commonwealth). Bandis reach down and find your balls!

Comments are closed.

Liberty Quotes

Those politicians, professors and union bosses who curse big business are fighting for a lower standard of living.— Ludwig von Mises